Open Question: Philosophy paper – can there be an indubitable foundation for knowledge?
I’m in an introductory philosophy course in university and I’m having a hard time with my essay. We have to discuss Descartes’ “Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings” and then make a case for whether or not we believe there can be an indubitable foundation for knowledge.
Thesis: “I believe that there is not an indubitable foundation for knowledge because we can only theorize about what that might be, and no theory can be proven true”
My argument: “In order to find an indubitable foundation for knowledge, we must be able to prove a theory to be true with complete certainty. No theory can be proven true. Therefore, we cannot find an indubitable foundation for knowledge.”
I understand though that my whole argument is a self-referential statement. I don’t know how to get around that. Do you have any suggestions?
(I’m sorry if these are bad/non-sensical arguments, I just kind of threw these together.. I know nothing about philosophy and I’m not doing so well in this class..)
Go to Source q&a posted via
Benefits of Meditation
